With regard to requests by government agencies to telecommunications service providers (TSPs) to provide information about customers' usage of communications devices and services: (a) between 2001 and 2013, how many such requests were made; (b) of the total referred to in (a), how many requests were made by the (i) RCMP, (ii) Canadian Security Intelligence Service, (iii) Competition Bureau, (iv) Canada Revenue Agency, (v) Canada Border Services Agency, (vi) Communications Security Establishment Canada; (c) for the requests referred to in (a), how many of each of the following types of information were requested, (i) geolocation of device, broken down by real-time and historical data, (ii) call detail records, as obtained by number recorders or by disclosure of stored data, (iii) text message content, (iv) voicemail, (v) cell tower logs, (vi) real-time interception of communications (i.e. wire-tapping), (vii) subscriber information, (viii) transmission data (e.g. duration of interaction, port numbers, communications routing data, etc.), (ix) data requests (e.g. web sites visited, IP address logs), (x) any other kinds of data requests pertaining to the operation of TSPs' networks and businesses, broken down by type; (d) for each of the request types referred to in (c), what are all of the data fields that are disclosed as part of responding to a request; (e) of the total referred to in (a), how many of the requests were made (i) for real-time disclosures, (ii) retroactively, for stored data, (iii) in exigent circumstances, (iv) in non-exigent circumstances, (v) subject to a court order; (f) of the total referred to in (a), (i) how many of the requests did TSPs fulfill, (ii) how many requests did they deny and for what reasons; (g) do the government agencies that request information from TSPs notify affected TSP subscribers that information pertaining to their telecommunications service has been requested or accessed by the government, (i) if so, how many subscribers are notified per year, (ii) by which government agencies; (h) for each type of request referred to in (c), broken down by agency, (i) how long is the information obtained by such requests retained by government agencies, (ii) what is the average time period for which government agencies request such information (e.g. 35 days of records), (iii) what is the average amount of time that TSPs are provided to fulfill such requests, (iv) what is the average number of subscribers who have the their information disclosed to government agencies; (i) what are the legal standards that agencies use to issue the requests for information referred to in (c); (j) how many times were the requests referred to in (c) based specifically on grounds of (i) terrorism, (ii) national security, (iii) foreign intelligence, (iv) child exploitation; (k) what is the maximum number of subscribers that TSPs are required by government agencies to monitor for each of the information types identified in (c); (l) has the government ever ordered (e.g. through ministerial authorization or a court order) the increase of one of the maximum numbers referred to in (k); (m) do TSPs ever refuse to comply with requests for information identified in (c) and, if so, (i) why were such requests refused, (ii) how do government agencies respond when a TSP refuses to comply; (n) between 2001 and 2013, did government agencies provide money or other forms of compensation to TSPs in exchange for the information referred to in (a) and, if so, (i) how much money have government agencies paid, (ii) are there different levels of compensation for exigent or non-exigent requests; (o) for the requests referred to in (a), how many users, accounts, IP addresses and individuals were subject to disclosure; (p) for the requests referred to in (a), how many were made without a warrant; (q) do the government agencies that request information from TSPs keep internal aggregate statistics on these type of requests and the kind of information requested; and (r) do the government agencies that request information from TSPs notify individuals when the law allows or after investigations are complete that their information has been requested or disclosed?

With regard to government telecommunications, what is the total amount of late-payment charges incurred in each month since January 2012 inclusive, in respect of: (a) cellular telephone service; and (b) service for all other wireless devices other than cellular telephones, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) service provider?

With regard to the Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 2010, c. 23: (a) what promotional and outreach activities has the government undertaken to inform businesses and organizations about their obligations under the Act; (b) what is the total cost of each activity; (c) what is the cost of each activity per province; (d) what is the estimated audience of each activity; (e) how many businesses or organizations are estimated to be impacted by the anti-spam law; and (f) what assessments has the government done about the readiness of organizations to comply with the law, and what are the file numbers, dates, titles, and results of those assessments?

With regard to the RCMP: for each recommendation made by Assistant Chief Judge Daniel R. Pahl in his report dated March 3, 2011, made under the Alberta Fatality Inquiries Act, concerning the shooting deaths of four members of the RCMP on March 3, 2005, (a) what measures, if any, has the RCMP or government taken in response to each recommendation; (b) when were those measures taken; and (c) if no measures have been taken in response to a particular recommendation, why not?

With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in Yukon, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in Nunavut, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the Northwest Territories, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

Mr. Speaker, as we know, many crises are unfolding around the world, such as the ones in Iraq and Ukraine, for example. However, one potentially very serious crisis could affect the development and safety of Africa and perhaps even the health of Canadians. We must not forget this crisis.

I am obviously speaking about the Ebola outbreak, an out-of-control epidemic raging in West Africa. There are more than 4,000 cases, but the figures could be much higher because not all cases have been reported. We know that Ebola kills more than half of the people infected and that there is no treatment for this terrible disease. It is urgent that this epidemic be contained as quickly as possible if we do not want to see the number of people infected increase exponentially. Resources on the ground are overwhelmed. Doctors Without Borders, which is perhaps the most active organization on the ground, has been forced to send home people suspected of having the disease. When these people return home, they risk infecting many others.

Dr. Liu, the president of Doctors Without Borders, said that it is our historic responsibility to act. This is urgent. We must act now to ensure that this does not turn into an even greater problem in the very near future. The situation is getting worse with every passing day. Therefore, a debate on this matter in the House of Commons is urgently needed. If we hold the debate tomorrow, my colleagues may not have enough time to prepare to work on this important issue. However, the longer we wait, the more serious the problem will become. There is talk at this time of an exponential increase. Every day counts.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge you to grant this emergency debate so that we can all work together and see what Canada can do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to ask you to hold an emergency debate on Canada's military role in Iraq.

As you know, last week the Prime Minister announced that Canada would be sending a few dozen special operations forces soldiers to Iraq to support the Kurdish army in the country's north. The soldiers are there in an advisory capacity and will remain behind the front lines. The forces' mission will be reassessed after 30 days.

Engaging our country in a military mission should be the subject of debate in Parliament, particularly given the fact that the Prime Minister has announced plans for it and remains short on detail and, most important, open ended. MPs should have the opportunity to express themselves on this very serious matter. Many questions remain to be answered.

I hope that you will grant my request and that we can hold this emergency debate as soon as possible.

I thank both hon. members for raising these matters and I am inclined to grant an emergency debate on both subjects.

Given that the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie had her request in first, I will schedule hers for tonight, and I will schedule the emergency debate for the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie for tomorrow evening following private members' business.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this question of privilege about closure.

I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this fairly legal argument to you, I propose to leave out page numbers and citations because I have prepared a written version of this for your office and I hope that will be acceptable to you, that I skip page numbers in this presentation. Hansard may not have the numbers of the debates, but I hope there is enough context so people can find them.

I belive this excessive use of what is often called “guillotine measures” is a violation of the rights of all members of Parliament, but I would like to stress that there is a disproportionate impact on members such as me who are within either smaller parties, that is less than 12 members, or who sit actually as independents, because in the roster of recognizing people in their speaker slot, quite often those of us in the smaller parties or independents simply never get to speak to the bills at all.

My question, Mr. Speaker, bears directly on what your predecessor said in this place on April 27, 2010. He said, “...the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation”.

In the autumn of 2011, in a ruling concerning the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Speaker, you yourself said that to constitute a prima facie case in regard to matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, you need to “...assess whether or not the member's ability to fulfill his parliamentary [activities] has been undermined”. At that moment in the same Debates, you had the occasion to reflect on “...the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members,...” and you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

I now have occasion to turn to other words that will guide us in this matter. From the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid decision, in the words of Mr. Justice Binnie, speaking for the court, he outlined the scope of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary privilege for the management of employees and said, “Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform Parliament’s constitutional function”. He went on to say at paragraph 41 of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment:

Similarly, Maingot defines privilege in part as “the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for Members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work”.

I would repeat and emphasize that, because although the Vaid decision was on a different fact set, Mr. Justice Binnie spoke to our core responsibility as parliamentarians when he said that we must be able, as legislators, to do our legislative work.

Mr. Justice Binnie continued in the Vaid decision to say:

To the question “necessary in relation to what?”, therefore, the answer is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly’s work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country’s business. To the same effect, see R. Marleau and C. Montpetit...where privilege is defined as “the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions”.

Mr. Justice Binnie went on to find further references in support of these principles from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

These are fundamental points. The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.

Finally, Mr. Justice Binnie—again, for the court—said at paragraph 62, on the subject of parliamentary functions in ruling that some employees would be covered by privilege, that coverage existed only if a connection were established between the category of employees and the exercise by the House of its functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including its role in holding the government to account.

As I said earlier, this approach was supported by your immediate predecessor. In a December 10, 2009 ruling, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Peter Milliken, said that one of his principle duties was to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, and of the House, including the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions, which is an indisputable privilege, and in fact an obligation.

It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.

The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.

It is only in the interest of time that I am going to read out the numbers of the bills and not their full description. Bill C-2, Bill C-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-13, Bill C-18, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, Bill C-27, Bill C-31, Bill C-32, Bill C-33, and Bill C-36 were all instances where closure of debate was used.

In many of the instances I just read out, and in the written argument I have presented, closure of debate occurred at second reading, again at report stage, and again at third reading. The limitation of debate was extreme.

A close examination of the guillotine measures imposed by the government demonstrate that the citizens of Canada have been unable to have their elected representatives adequately debate the various and complex issues central to these bills in order to hold the government to account. Members of Parliament have been deprived and prevented from adequately debating these measures, through 21 separate motions for time allocation in this session alone. It undermines our ability to perform our parliamentary duties.

In particular, I want to again highlight the effect that the guillotine motions have on my ability as a representative of a smaller party, the Green Party. We do not have 12 seats in the House as yet, and as a result we are in the last roster to be recognized once all other parties have spoken numerous times. Quite often, there is not an opportunity for members in my position, nor for independent members of Parliament, to be able to properly represent our constituents.

Again, I should not have to repeat this. Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in protecting our rights, as you must as Speaker, that in this place we are all equals, regardless of how large our parties are. As voters in Canada are all equal, so too do I, as a member of Parliament, have an equal right and responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents in this place, which are equal to any other member in this place.

As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.

Political parties are not even referenced in our constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 2011, in your ruling considering the member for Mount Royal and his question of privilege, you said that one of your responsibilities that you take very seriously is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded. The principal right of the House and its members, and their privilege, is to hold the government to account. In fact, it is an obligation, according to your immediate predecessor.

In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function. As a British joint committee report pointed out, without this protection, members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duty, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.

To hold the government to account is the raison d'être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation's business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function. In the words of the marketers, it is “job one”.

Our constitutional duty requires us to exercise our right and privilege, to study legislation, and to hold the government to account by means of raising a question of privilege. This privilege has been denied to us because of the consistent and immoderate use of the guillotine in regard to 21 instances of time allocation, in this session alone.

This use of time allocation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the history of Canada, and infringes on your duty as Speaker to protect our rights and privileges as members. As you have said many times, that is your responsibility and you take it very seriously. However, these closure motions undermine your role and your duty to protect us. Therefore, it diminishes the role of Speaker, as honoured from time immemorial.

In fact, you expressed it, Mr. Speaker, in debates in the autumn of 2011, at page 4396, when you had occasion to reflect on “the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members..”, and when you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

Denying the members' rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d'être of Parliament and of the Speaker's function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.

In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege, that this is a prima facie breach of the privileges and rights of all members.

Peter Van LoanConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by pointing out that there was some confusion in my friend's address. There was a sort of blurring of the lines between closure and time allocation. They were referred to as one and the same thing, but as we know, they are two entirely different devices.

Time allocation and closure exist under different headings in our Standing Orders, and they are not the same. However, much of what the member casually referred to as closure is in fact motions for time allocation.

The two should not be confused, as they were in her argument. It is important for all those who are listening to be aware of that and to understand that there has been some confusion in the arguments that were laid out on that basis.

While I disagree with the hon. member's question of privilege, I do want to express my appreciation for the advance notice that she provided. It has given an opportunity to provide some research and to share it with you, Mr. Speaker.

What is interesting is that this is a point of privilege that suggests that the government, in following exactly the letter of the law and rules that are laid out before us in the Standing Orders that have been adopted in this very House, has somehow offended the privileges of individual members. It is quite clear from the outset that in following the rules, and in following them exactly, we cannot in any way be offending the privileges of members. It is the members of this House themselves who have set those rules for the conduct of this chamber. The rules have endured for many years in the form that we are dealing with today in this motion for privilege.

I do appreciate the member's abundant comments and quotes from Mr. Justice Binnie, for whom I have a high regard. They are all very noteworthy, but I do not see that they bear any relevance to the actual question at hand of the use of time allocation. Good words that they might be, they were not trenching upon the issue in any way whatsoever.

However, we do have ample guidance. For example, page 669 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice is quite clear. It says:

...the Speaker has ruled that the Chair possesses no discretionary authority to refuse to put a motion of time allocation if all the procedural exigencies have been observed.

That tells us straight out that simply using the rules as written, and following them, is appropriate.

On March 1, 2001, at page 1415 of the Debates, Deputy Speaker Bob Kilger ruled on a question of privilege concerning the former Liberal government's use of time allocation. He said of the matter then before the Chair:

In the case which gave rise to the point which I am addressing, there has been no suggestion that the government in any way deviated from the procedure laid out in the standing orders. I do not feel, under those circumstances, that there are any grounds whatsoever which would lead the Chair to intervene. The Chair wishes to be very clear on this point. The rules and practices established by this House with respect to time allocation leave the Speaker with no alternative in this matter.

Simply put, the rules are the rules.

The Chair then quoted Mr. Speaker Fraser's March 31, 1993 ruling, at page 17861 of the Debates:

I have to advise the House that the rule is clear. It is within the government's discretion to use it. I cannot find any lawful way that I can exercise a discretion which would unilaterally break a very specific rule.

Once again, the rules are the rules, and following them is entirely appropriate.

Going back to Deputy Speaker Kilger's ruling, before dismissing the question of privilege under consideration, he said:

Our system has always been one which functions on the basis of rules established by the House itself. However, under our current standing orders, it would be highly inappropriate for the Chair to take unilateral action on issues already provided for in the standing orders. Where the standing orders give the Speaker some discretion, then it is the Speaker's responsibility to be guided accordingly; where no such guidance is provided, no such action can be taken. It is certainly not up to the Chair to establish a timetable for the business of the House. It is by its rules and not by the authority of the Speaker that the House protects itself from excesses, both on the government side and on that of the opposition. The Speaker's role is to judge each case as it arises, fairly and objectively, and in so doing, to ensure that those rules are applied as the House intended.

It is quite clear that adhering to the letter of our Standing Orders, the rules which we adopt to govern our conduct, can hardly form the basis of a prima facie case of privilege.

However, as I understand the grievance of the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, she is principally concerned about having the opportunity to participate more often in debate. Generally speaking, she questions the overall amount of time budgeted for debates for government legislation.

Mr. Speaker, should you find that argument appealing and wish to perhaps show some courage and disagree with all previous Speakers, decide that it is your role as Speaker to unilaterally review our rules, change them and make those kinds of amendments, I would provide you with some statistics as guidance for that policy argument that you should ignore the rules, if you want to take that courageous stand on the basis of policy. That is, a comparison of the amount of time spent debating comparable legislation in our present Parliament with the current parliament in Westminster, which of course is our parent Parliament, if you will, whose rules we have followed the path of. Here is what it reveals.

Contrary to the arguments of many in the opposition and media pundits, we actually have more extensive debate here than ever occurs in the British parliament.

For example, the average Canadian government bill in this Parliament, or since the last election, is debated at second reading for almost three sitting days, or 2.74 days, which is the average number. To compare with Britain, instead of three days at second reading, a typical bill in that current parliament since the last election is debated about one day, or just over that at 1.16 days. Therefore, we have almost three times as much debate on average for each bill in the Canadian Parliament as does the British parliament.

At report stage, the comparison is even more dramatic. Our average is 1.41 sitting days in Canada and in Britain it is 5.8 hours, not days, which is less than a full sitting day, for consideration. Then at third reading, the difference is even more stark where in Canada we spend on average 1.55 sitting days on third reading of a bill while the House of Commons of the mother parliament can deal with third reading on average in 41 minutes. That is 41 minutes compared with our over one and a half sitting days at third reading.

This tells you, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding the complaints and carping of the opposition, we actually have more ample debate here than they do in the British House of Commons.

The opposition says that we are shortening debate. No, we are actually a real talk shop compared with what they do across the ocean. Once more, this does not reflect the individual members' of Parliament right to speak. We have only 308 members, but their 650 MPs can get the same amount of work done in well less than half the time because they are not quite such a talk shop. I guess they are a little more efficient. Perhaps they have a culture that actually focuses on getting things done as our government seeks to do.

Whatever the case, one can see clearly that the government's use of time allocation here is not about shutting down debate. It is not about cutting short the amount of time of debate provided members. It is in fact exactly what I have said it is from the start. Time allocation exists and is used by us as a scheduling device to create certainty in debate so that people know when a debate will conclude, and members can plan to vote and know when those votes will occur.

I will quote from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 533, which says exactly the same thing. I have quoted from it before.

Time allocation is a device for planning the use of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing the debate to an immediate conclusion.

Of course, that is the difference between time allocation and closure.

We have approached time allocation as a tool for the orderly and predictable management of the legislative agenda. Those statistics I offered clearly demonstrate that the time we propose for consideration of a bill is adequate and quite generous. In fact, I know that there have been occasions where the opposition have complained in this place that we have allocated more time than is necessary to debate a bill.

More pointedly though, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands I think raises the disappointing argument about the number of speeches that she can personally give in the House. With respect to the actual act of a member of Parliament speaking in the House, as we all know, speaking turns are done on the principle of catching the Speaker's eye. The convention of catching the Speaker's eye is described at page 318 of O'Brien and Bosc:

No Member may speak in the House until called upon or recognized by the Speaker; any Member so recognized may speak during debate, questions and comments periods, Question Period, and other proceedings of the House. Various conventions and informal arrangements exist to encourage the participation of all parties in debate; nevertheless, the decision as to who may speak is ultimately the Speaker’s.

That point is echoed at citation 461 and 462 of Beauchesne's.

Therefore, what we have in this question of privilege is really an implicit criticism, Mr. Speaker, of your conduct rather than that of the government. As you said in your own ruling of April 23, 2013, at page 15798 of Debates:

...the need to “catch the Speaker’s eye”, as it is called, continues to underpin the Chair’s authority in this respect. Members are free, for instance, to seek the floor under questions and comments at any time to make their views known. They are also free at any time to seek the floor to intervene in debate itself on a bill or motion before the House. Ultimately, it is up to each individual member to decide how frequently he or she wishes to seek the floor, knowing that being recognized by the Speaker is not always a guaranteed proposition. The right to seek the floor at any time is the right of each individual member of Parliament and is not dependent on any other member of Parliament.

The right of the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to seek the floor in debate does not depend on any other member, not even me, as government House leader. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the conclusion of your April 23, 2013, ruling offers clear advice to the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I will quote you again, Mr. Speaker:

Were the Chair to be faced with choices of which member to recognize at any given time, then of course the Chair would exercise its discretion.... If members want to be recognized, they will have to actively demonstrate that they wish to participate. They have to rise in their places and seek the floor.

Perhaps the hon. member will be cheered by the fact that the growing rates of independent members, thanks to the continued loss of MPs from the New Democratic caucus, means that the proportional debate rotation used as guidance by the Chair will see sooner and more frequent speaking opportunities for members not belonging to recognized parties.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think you are on very solid ground to dismiss this question of privilege without the need to reserve your decision.